Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2009) — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

So, when are we banning handguns?_________________There is a luxury to self-reproach.

First of all one study does not turn the tide. Particularly when this particular subject matter has been rife with studies. A year or two ago they did an analysis of studies up to date on this and found that EVERY SINGLE study they could find up to that point had major procedural flaws. Some of the studies looked at could and were used on both sides of the debate.

One hopes this one is better, of course. Lessons learned and all that, but I'd be interested to see how it does in peer review before I'm willing to grant any points one way or another.

Even police officers who are trained extensively in small arms have abysmal marksmanship in real life shoot outs. Statistically most of their shots miss at an average range of nine yards. We should probably take away their guns too._________________"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".

And, from what I understand, police are also more likely to be harmed by keeping a gun in the home than without, despite (one assumes) extensive safety training.

Minor quibble: The study isn't about home-owners having poor accuracy and thus their guns should be taken away, it's about having a gun during an attack leading to more death (of the homeowner/victim, which we can all agree is terrible—I'm cynical enough to expect that somebody will argue that the robber dying is not only okay, but a bonus) instead of, you know, safety as is commonly purported.

As for when are we banning guns, it's a rhetorical question. Of course America won't give up its handguns, but maybe it should._________________There is a luxury to self-reproach.

That's a two-fold why there. Why do firearms lead to a higher chance of being harmed (being harmed defined as what, as opposed to what happens when an incident occurs with no firearm in the home?) and if this is true, why does this information create a prerogative to ban handguns entirely?

If you assault an intruder who has a weapon, yes, there is a good chance they'll try to shoot you regardless of whether you have a gun, a bat, or are just trying to tackle them. I think more of what it's saying is that if you personally own a gun, then you are more likely to try something against the intruder, because of the security that firearms give, than you would if he had a gun and you did not. Especially if you think that owning a gun and never actually using it will somehow make you safer.

That part makes logical sense, but I'd still like to hear the reasoning for why it should lead to the banning of firearms.

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Sep. 30, 2009) — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

So, when are we banning handguns?

This study asks the wrong questions. The right question is:
Do places with laws permitting concealed handgun have less (violent) crime?

While I may not like it, the answer is, "yes."

Edited for ambiguity._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

If you're looking to have an interesting discussion about guns, it would make more sense to discuss the case the SCOTUS will hear this year about whether the Heller decision also applies to state gun laws._________________"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

Minor quibble: The study isn't about home-owners having poor accuracy and thus their guns should be taken away, it's about having a gun during an attack leading to more death (of the homeowner/victim, which we can all agree is terrible—I'm cynical enough to expect that somebody will argue that the robber dying is not only okay, but a bonus) instead of, you know, safety as is commonly purported.

If I know my terminology this study isn't about homeowners anyway. I would think this study applies to carrying-laws._________________

This study asks the wrong questions. The right question is:
Do places with laws permitting concealed handgun have less (violent) crime?

While I may not like it, the answer is, "yes."

Edited for ambiguity.

Don't suppose you have a source handy?

Not handy, but I'll return to this tonight or tomorrow AM._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

If you're looking to have an interesting discussion about guns, it would make more sense to discuss the case the SCOTUS will hear this year about whether the Heller decision also applies to state gun laws.

However, increased penalties for illegal possession of a weapon have a slight effect on reducing gun crime (this bit comes from the actual book Freakonomics, so I'm not really able to cite it online)._________________Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

However, increased penalties for illegal possession of a weapon have a slight effect on reducing gun crime (this bit comes from the actual book Freakonomics, so I'm not really able to cite it online).

Blast, I actually gave my copy of Freakonomics away recently. I will take your word for it; your initial statement simply struck me as contrary to what I've heard before that concealed handguns actually have no net effect._________________There is a luxury to self-reproach.